Hacker News Reader

Comment by trog | Hacker News Reader

There's someone here in Australia doing advocacy work on behalf of renters who has just started publishing a list of vacant houses for people who need a roof over their head (1).

It is irritating a lot of people but we are in a massive housing crisis and there are credible sources saying we have a million vacant homes.

I'm a bit torn on this - my grandfather moved into aged care almost a year ago. His home is vacant up to three months at a time, then family come and visit from the US to look after him and they stay there.

We need more pressure to get truly vacant homes back into the market. There seem to be a lot owned by international investors just for sitting on housing to have it appreciate.

1. https://www.instagram.com/p/C5fsx0ZvZSY/

View on HN

>There seem to be a lot owned by international investors just for sitting on housing to have it appreciate.

Having previously lived overseas in an expat hotspot / money laundering hub, I'm far more skeptical that international "investors" are buying homes for capital appreciation. They are:

- Sheltering cash (legit and or ill-gotten) from their home regime

- Laundering cash... where even a capital loss doesn't really matter. A newspaper in said former country of residence loves to report on big loss making transactions. Normies chuckle that a rich a person is "losing money." The fact is that someone is just taking a loss on cash that is now completely legitimate.

Why mention this? Because viewed through the lens of a home buyer / occupier, the market participants mentioned above pay a premium which distorts the markets. Massive capital losses are no big deal when the alternative is no capital.

The simple answer is to greatly increase the homestead exemption while raising property taxes to offset the lost revenue. Let those not living most of the year in their houses pay a premium for that luxury.

Respectfully - while that's no doubt useful for your visiting family, weighing that up vs the social costs of taking a house off the market when it could be used by a family, in the midst of what I think is the worst rental crisis in Aus history, in which many families are forced to live in vehicles, it doesn't really stack up in a utilitarian sense.

The house isn't being lived in, rental income could easily pay for temporary accommodation, or it could be shared with roommates etc.

what if another family member would take over soon but isn't of age yet, or is otherwise occupied but intends to take over later? I don't think families should give up inheritances, especially not for nothing. on the other hand there are corporations not renting out offices and apartments because appreciation will get them more money. this is what should be fought by laws, not the previous situation

> Respectfully - while that's no doubt useful for your visiting family, weighing that up vs the social costs of taking a house off the market when it could be used by a family, in the midst of what I think is the worst rental crisis in Aus history, in which many families are forced to live in vehicles, it doesn't really stack up in a utilitarian sense.

I don't disagree - I find it terrible that it's being kept off the market, especially as someone that is struggling with the housing crisis myself (my partner and I considered buying it, but my grandfather built it as a townhouse for him to live out retirement in and it's not really suitable for us with a young child).

There are complicating family factors for us but at the end of the day I would absolutely rather this house be on the market where someone could take advantage of it.

I think the reality is there are vastly more totally unused homes that are simply not being rented because they're just being sat on by (presumably mostly overseas investors).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com